Evidently, †you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.

Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list. There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans. So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".

Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list. There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans. So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".

Evidently, †you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.

Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list. There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans. So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".

Oh yeah they're all described but your high priest dont really like to think about them all that much

I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list. There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans. So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".

on the bottom of page 2, you alluded to the fact that mutations dont make bacteria evolve into anything beyond bacteria

I said †

Quote

would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly?

in response to:

Quote

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

So it wasn't clear whether you expected a single mutation to turn an organism into a completely different one.Regarding the mutationS that turned non-fruit flies into fruit flies, they are the many mutationS that differentiate the genome of the common ancestor of fruit flies (Drosophila) from the genome of the common ancestor of [Drosophila and another non-fruit fly genus], assuming such ancestor would not be called "fruit fly". Needless to say, these mutation have accumulated in millions of years in the natural environment and are not expected to be reproduced in the lab during a scientist's lifetime. But researchers have found mutations governing specific phenotypes, wing patterns in particular.

Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Again more so called pseudoempericism and to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years.

..and no good evidence for intermediates so your priests came up with super sun god powered punctuated equilibrium

You are making claims, then you need to support them. Please provide evidence for you assertion that any of the fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time. The mere fact that you are using a computer shows that this is wrong.

Further, astronomers can see backwards in time and observe that the fundamental forces of our universe are the same 13 billion years ago as the are now.

You can just ignore the evidence, but it just makes you look like a dummy. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Now, as to the book... here's what it says in regards to an explosion:

Quote

The term 'Big Bang' implies some sort of explosion, which is a not wholly inappropriate analogy, except that the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space.

So, what exploded? It couldn't have been a thermonuclear explosion as you think since matter didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang. It couldn't have been matter/anti-matter, etc.

Do you see that word 'analogy'? A not wholly appropriate analogy.

You are making an argument about AN ANALOGY. This is just another strawman argument and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Tell you what, I know that you won't, but why don't you tell me what the Cambrian explosion is. In your own words, describe what exploded and when and how. Go ahead, describe in detail.

Then you bring up an entirely new argument (typical of creationists) without satisfactorily completing any of the prior arguments. Intermediates?

There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles showing intermediates. Heck, you are an intermediate between your parents and your children. Duh.

Now, let's see what do we need from you:

define homozygousdefine heterozygousdescribe the Cambrian explosiondefine symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)hyper-inflationdescribe the endocrine notion of phenotype selectiondefine phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)define speciesshow that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time

And now you want to talk about intermediates?

Gish Gallop on!

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Evidently, †you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.

Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

So removing the testicles means you are immune to testicular hernias... that makes sense (forastero still doesn't though).

What about any of the other types of hernias? Would removal of the testicles prevent those as well?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

The request of "evidence please" was made in a context that "forastero" ignores:

†

Quote

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

The quotes from Einstein are opinion, not evidence. In fact, the repeated theme of "deeply emotional conviction" is a big clue that even Einstein was aware that he wasn't offering evidence. Of course, people used to proof-texting get quite confused when running into a scientific discussion where quoting an authority's opinion doesn't further an argument.

Wesley, I misread that question but partly because I already provided evidence with the †big bang †(from chaos) quotes and the image of earth (order) that I posted above.

Actually you engaged in EPIC FAIL. †The entropy (disorder) of the universe has been increasing since the big bang (chaos) to a universe now containing the earth (order). Your argument is self-contradictory, though you are so ignorant you don't know the trivial misunderstanding that when addressed gives the solution.

You do not understand thermodynamics (or anything else) above 10 year old level, and evidently your superior designer is no more superior than the force of gravity, which explains the formation of the earth (order) from a dust cloud (chaos).

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, youíre taking refuge in what we see in the world." †PaV